www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News HORIZONS and Pax Christi

Joe, that was an absolutely wonderful reflection. Thank you.

On a lighter note, Edwin, actually I think only you and I know what happened to ARV before its GCU days. But it is a valid point!

K.

Steve,

As to "The Florida Catholic" serving all of the Roman Catholic dioceses and archdiocese in Florida, not exactly.

The Diocese of Saint Augustine, when it was the sole diocese in Florida, started "The Florida Catholic" in the 1940s. Then, the Miami archdiocese was formed and then Saint Petersburg, Palm Beach Gardens, Venice and Pensacola were formed, not exactly in that order. For some reason, Saint Augustine bailed out of "The Florida Catholic." The Diocese of Saint Augustine publishes its own quarterly magazine. Consequently, there is very little news concerning the Diocese of Saint Augustine in "The Florida Catholic."

I know. I used to live in the Diocese of Saint Augustine [in which the cathedral is located] for three summers and during breaks. But the chancery is located in Jacksonville. I also used to live in the Diocese of Saint Petersburg while completing my B.A. degree from Saint Leo College.

My historical instincts rose up when it was mentioned about "what happened to the ARV before its GCU days." There are a few of us who remember or are acquainted with, the role that the "Amerikanskyj Ruskyj Vistnyk" ("American-Rusyn Messenger") played in the life of the Ruthenian Greek Catholic Church before it evolved into what we know today as the "Greek Catholic Union Messenger."

In its heyday, the "Vistnyk" was the forum for much debate on current events in the church, so much to the point that it was sanctioned several times by Bishop Takach, for its views opposing Rome and the Ruthenian hierarchy on the issue of clerical celibacy and other matters.. It was particularly the fiery editorials of Fr. Stefan Varzaly that personified the opposition. (Father Varzaly, one of the leaders of the "movement for independence" and eventually, the new Orthodox Greek Catholic jurisdiction, later moved on to the Russian Church, creating further division among parishes, and even was on the McCarthy "list" of suspected communists, stemming from of his support of all things Russian.)

Really, it was because the GCU had the courage (if you will) to challenge Bishop Takach in his implementation of the decree "Cum Data Fuerit" (issued by the Vatican on March 1, 1929) that it eventually was given the choice to either "tow the line" or cease to be part of the Greek Catholic Church. This included not only the editorial board of the Vistnyk but also the executives of the "Sojedinenije" (Union), as the Greek Catholic Union was then known. If my memory of American-Ruthenian history serves me well, it was only after repeated threats from the bishop's curia, that the leaders of the Sojedinenije acquiesced and no longer supported those who were on the "excommunication list" such as Fathers Varzaly, Molchany and (soon-to-be bishop) Chronock. Once the organization was rid of these "troublemakers" it was free to continue as a Catholic fraternal society. Of course, in another "theatre" of the "war against celibacy," things were complicated by the fact that the "Sojedinenije" threatened to foreclose on the bishop's residence in Homestead, to which it held the title, located across from St. John the Baptist Cathedral (since moved to Munhall in the 1990s).

It was when Bishop Takach and his curial cohorts, among them, Msgr. George Mihaylo and Fr. Julius Grigassy (I don't mean to comment on the sincerity of these two priests' ministries), used certain legal tactics against them, that the Sojedinenije executives gave in. There was too much at risk financially, in regards to insurance policies and assets, that somehow, in the judgment of certain courts, could be frozen or absorbed by the church, if the organization no longer maintained a Catholic affiliation. Interesting, to say the least. Those were indeed, "the days" when matters became heated (and even violent at times, requiring police intervention), because of many people's conviction to live by their traditions and the guarantees of the Uzhorod Union.

The GCU leaders held out as long as they could, because they honestly supported the struggle against celibacy and other latinizations. At its 21st Convention held in Detroit in 1932, they formed the KOVO, or "Committee for the Defense of the Eastern Rite" (Komitet Obrorony Vostochnoho Obrjada), aimed at defending the church against such Roman innovations. The Sojedinenije renewed the call for the tradition of "rule by the people" or "sobornopravnist" that we still hear about today, in struggles going on in other jurisdictions. But these were the 1930s, the days of the great depression, financial pressure was heavy upon all Americans, especially such institutions such as the GCU. Beginning in 1936, with the election of a new Sojedinenije president, the tides began to change.

As we all know, the battle ultimately ended in the creation of the "American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Diocese of the USA" under the auspices of the Constantinople Patriarch and the leadership of Bishop Chornock on the one hand, and the total "hierarchization" of the Ruthenian Greek Catholic Church on the other, with enforced celibacy and the turning over of property rights from the parish boards to the bishop. After that, the path was clear for unlimited latinization in the Pittsburgh Exarchate.

Despite the promising administration of Bishop Daniel Ivancho (1948-54), who attempted to heal wounds and divisions and return some of the Eastern flavor to the church (he instituted programs for cantors, good relationships with his priests, established the seminary in Pittsburgh, with it's Byzantine style chapel and made plans for a beautiful Eastern cathedral in the Oakland section of Pittsburgh, which unfortunately was never realized.), after Bishop Ivancho's untimely resignation from the Pittsburgh See, latinization and hierarchical control reached its climax during the reign of Bishop Nicholas T. Elko, in the 1950s through the mid 60s. Those were the days of the removal of iconostasis from far too many traditional churches and the erection of some of the "modern" Roman-style churches that we still see today. Interestingly, despite Bishop Elko's fierce program of making the Greek Catholic Church appear only ever so slightly different from the Latin Rite, he did favor certain "formalities" and loved the pomp of Byzantine worship, including almost always vesting ceremoniously in the church and multiple pontifical liturgies. He shared this personal partiality for "high" services and flair with Bishop Fulton J. Sheen, who was often his guest at large liturgical gatherings.

Much of this was outlined by Fr. John Slivka of Brooklyn, in his very helpful and priceless collection of articles and documents entitled, "Historical Outlines." I don't think it is still in print anywhere, but I've been trying to get a few extra copies for years. It should be republished, with the cooperation of Fr. Slivka's family. Its contents witness to the "flavor" of church life in those days, when religious matters really were a big deal to Ruthenian Greek Catholics and before the age when people became complacent about having any voice in church matters.

Well, that's the Ruthenian history class for today. I don't mean to lecture about things you may already know, but I do enjoy reminiscing about the "old days" and think it is important that members today, regardless of their own particular family origins, understand the historical road of the Ruthenian Church, both here and in Europe. A familiarity with it is absolutely necessary to the understanding of the spirit of the church in our own time. This is a proud heritage that all of our faithful are the beneficiaries of. God bless you all.

Joe Lavryshyn

Dear Michael,

Thanks for the correction and the information.!

Steve

JOY!

Sorry, folks, but I had to make some additional comments about HORIZONS. With all due respect for those who dedicate their time and talent to this eparchial newspaper, I still have some qualms about the content. Quite frankly, the paper is excellent, but the content is pitiful.

As I was tossing out old papers out over the weekend, I came across the October 21, 2001 edition. I decided to skim lightly over the kiddie section and read their cut-and-paste “Life Questions” blurb. This was a question and answer thing for lost youts. The writer asks the expert when he should kneel or stand at Mass. The expert, named Joe, writes back and gives the perplexed teen some advice about “Mass” etiquette. He points out some helpful pointers for those who haven't learned anything about liturgical postures through most of their childhood. I thought it might be relevant for us to learn what HORIZONS is teaching its youts.

First, the boy is asked to “check out the missalet”. This is good for us Byzantine Christians. A missalet is a very important.

Second, it is made clear that “we kneel because, at this moment, the bread and wine are becoming Jesus' body and blood right before us, and we kneel in reverence and awe”. This puzzles me because I thought Byzantines were supposed to stand during the Anaphora? Of course, this is useless and misleading advice for our teens since this is not Byzantine Christian liturgical etiquette.

Third, “we stand and grab hold of hands as a community to say the prayer Jesus taught all of us”. This, I believe, the author is referring to the Lord's Prayer or Our Father. Don't remember any Byzantine Christian, Orthodox or Catholic, holding hands during the Our Father; nor do I remember the prayer being "said'. Isn't it sung or chanted instead?

I know this was written by a Roman Catholic for a Roman Catholic about Roman Catholic liturgical (or Mass) etiquette, but what exactly is it doing in HORIZONS? What purpose does it serve? Does anyone check this stuff?

Please, don't consider my post mere complaining. This is a real concern since I am worried why the children's section is giving misleading advice. I am still trying to figure out what exactly the children are supposed to be learning. Should I ban our children from reading the children's section because it seems to instill confusion and defeats the efforts of our catechists in the ECF program? Any advice how to handle this? Am I reading HORIZON's articles too closely?

Help!

[ 11-19-2001: Message edited by: Edwin ]

Edwin,

Re: the situation you last describe, in a word, ugh. Just the thing to train another generation to be lost to your churches — the old "Catholic-is-Catholic' thing — and that's if they don't join their spouses' Protestant churches or go totally secular.

My guess is an overworked priest hasn't got time to do a proper paper.

So, again, I'm for the suggestion of one quality metropolitan super-paper instead of more than one smaller, mediocre one.

http://oldworldrus.com

Joe,

Quite interesting.

As I understand it, Bishop Daniel Ivancho resigned for reasons of health, moved to Jacksonville, Florida, received a dispensation and married. He was not listed in the "Catholic Almanac" for years as an eparch, although, right before he died, he was listed as a retired eparch.

Regarding Bishop Nicholas Elko and Bishop Peter Fulton Sheen:

Is it true that Bishop Fulton Sheen was bi-ritual [Latin and Byzantine]?

Is it true that Bishop Fulton Sheen was bi-ritual [Latin and Byzantine]?

Yes, at least for a while, when Nicholas (Elko) was the Ruthenian archbishop in America (1950s-1960s). It is to his credit he liked the Orthodox Liturgy so much. I think he wanted to serve it in Russia when Communism fell, but he died before that happened. I've seen a black-and-white photo of his clean-shaven excellency ( ) in a full set of Byzantine bishop's vestments, with the black-and-white repeating cross pattern on the sakkos like on some icons. Striking image.

http://oldworldrus.com

Can't a Catholic bishop vest, and serve the Liturgy, in whatever "rite" he wishes? I thought only priests needed to seek "bi-ritual" faculties.

And from whom would a bishop need to seek such permissions? The Pope?

Can't a Catholic bishop vest, and serve the Liturgy, in whatever "rite" he wishes? I thought only priests needed to seek "bi-ritual" faculties.

And from whom would a bishop need to seek such permissions? The Pope?

I'm pretty sure bishops, like priests and laity, belong to particular Churches with their rites. After all, Orthodox ecclesiology is centered on the bishop as apostle, shepherd and liturgiarch of his eparchy or local Church. (Priests are only his local deputies — no bishop, no priestly ministry.) But what you say is fascinating because it could pave the way for an Eastern Catholic Pope who wouldn't be expected to become Roman... if, as Pope, he belongs to all and none of the particular Churches. (In the event of an Eastern one, a Roman could be made patriarch of the West.)

http://oldworldrus.com

How else to explain the consecration Liturgy of Bishop Jan Hirka in Presov, Slovakia, where Cardinal Tomko (the chief consecrator and certainly a member of the Latin Church) and various other Slovak RC bishops were vested as Byzantine bishops yet wore their Latin pointy mitres? Do these bishops all have "bi-ritual" faculties from the requisite authority?

How else to explain the consecration Liturgy of Bishop Jan Hirka in Presov, Slovakia, where Cardinal Tomko (the chief consecrator and certainly a member of the Latin Church) and various other Slovak RC bishops were vested as Byzantine bishops yet wore their Latin pointy mitres? Do these bishops all have "bi-ritual" faculties from the requisite authority?

Well, bishops, like the rest of us, aren't perfect and can be ignorant or or choose to break rules. Mix'n'match vestments are against the rules.

http://oldworldrus.com

The Serge-man is right (again). Bishops are bishops -- period. Each bishop is the ruler of a diocese, governing his priests and people, as part of a synod of bishops under their patriarch.

A Roman bishop is a Roman bishop; a Byzantine bishop is a Byzantine bishop under whatever synodal or patriarchal jurisdiction.

Although some bishops may like to play episcopal-Barbie, dressing up in whatever garb seems suitable or fashionable, the fact remains that the canons of the church state clearly that syncretism (mix-n-match) is against the rule. Period. No exceptions. If you're Byzantine, you celebrate and dress Byzantine; if Roman,......

The only exception I would make is (and this is truly outside the canons!) if a cradle Byzantine who functioned and was ordained Roman was celebrating Byzantine for a damned good reason, I would allow him to vest Byzantine because of the blood -- and for the psychological reason that he should both experience and understand what he has abjured -- and LOST.

Hey. All's fair in love and war. And this would not be war, but rather love for one's own who left the pasture and needs to be hit upside the head with a 2x4.

Blessings!

OK, folks. Time to start a new thread on bishops? Thanks for your participation.